A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Aren't most US nuns these days on the liberal side of the theological spectrum? I thought that's why conservatives in the Vatican tried to have a purge.

Depends on the nun, but it’s definitely true that some nuns are left of most lay Catholics, and some nuns are left of every lay Catholic.

And I am just irrationally amused and charmed that there is a St. Monica's in Santa Monica. Duh, probably, but still.

There’s a St. Charles in San Carlos, a St. Matthew in San Mateo, and even a St. Bruno in San Bruno. But please, no possessives — the parish is named for the saint but is not em’s property. I worked several summers for a nun who did graphic design for parish stationery.

And I think that so long as you haven't been previously married in a form recognized by the Church (Protestant weddings usually count, but Universal Life ones typically don't), having a kid with Bridget Moynihan prior to marrying Not Bridget is okie-dokie under the rules.

It’s a widely held misconception among lay Catholics that only marriages deemed “valid” by church law are sacramental in character and subject to annulment before a new marriage can be performed by the church. Not so. I know several priests who had to deliver the news that Bride was not going to get a wedding Mass just because Groom’s prior marriage was performed by a justice of the peace in Vegas. It’s true that weddings to Protestants require “permission” while marriages to “persons of no creed” require dispensation, but all marriages entered into prior to seeking a church wedding have to be adjudicated somehow. The standards for establishing an imperfect formation of intent are probably easier for an Elvis chapel wedding, but still.

And depending upon your local bishop, annulments are not as rare as one might expect.

On that we certainly agree, but I’ve never understood how liberal Catholics can somehow regard that as evidence of evolutionary progress. There was a local Monsignor who was the go-to guy for the 49ers’ annulments. I find that idea discouraging, not heartening.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

There’s a St. Charles in San Carlos, a St. Matthew in San Mateo, and even a St. Bruno in San Bruno. But please, no possessives — the parish is named for the saint but is not em’s property. I worked several summers for a nun who did graphic design for parish stationery.

And a St. Barbara's in Santa Barbara?

Sorry, pal - that's the way my shanty Irish people talk about parishes named for saints. You're probably one of those people who, when talking about a ship/boat/imaginary space thingy, make a point to insist on dropping the "the" from the name, right? "The correct way to refer to the starship is simply 'Enterprise," Smedley, not 'The Enterprise.' I'm so disappointed at how gauche you've become lately."

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It’s a widely held misconception among lay Catholics that only marriages deemed “valid” by church law are sacramental in character and subject to annulment before a new marriage can be performed by the church. Not so. I know several priests who had to deliver the news that Bride was not going to get a wedding Mass just because Groom’s prior marriage was performed by a justice of the peace in Vegas. It’s true that weddings to Protestants require “permission” while marriages to “persons of no creed” require dispensation, but all marriages entered into prior to seeking a church wedding have to be adjudicated somehow. The standards for establishing an imperfect formation of intent are probably easier for an Elvis chapel wedding, but still.

I acknowledge your experience and simply note that mine have been different.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

On that we certainly agree, but I’ve never understood how liberal Catholics can somehow regard that as evidence of evolutionary progress. There was a local Monsignor who was the go-to guy for the 49ers’ annulments. I find that idea discouraging, not heartening.

Perhaps I am simply a pragmatist who is happy when people who want a wedding Mass (sometimes it's even the dudes!) can have a wedding Mass - assuming the flexibility is not based upon $.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Perhaps I am simply a pragmatist who is happy when people who want a wedding Mass (sometimes it's even the dudes!) can have a wedding Mass - assuming the flexibility is not based upon $.

Sometimes you have to shop around a bit, but it's usually possible to find a priest to do a marriage ceremony. The nice thing about the Church's medieval bureaucracy is that a good priest can always find a loophole. For every stodgy priest eager to recite every rule, there is a Not Bob priest saying, aw, WTF, what a cute couple!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Perhaps I am simply a pragmatist who is happy when people who want a wedding Mass (sometimes it's even the dudes!) can have a wedding Mass - assuming the flexibility is not based upon $.

Is it such a shame if the flexibility is based on $?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is it such a shame if the flexibility is based on $?

It is to the people who don't.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I acknowledge your experience and simply note that mine have been different.

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

You're usually off quoting Jesus somewhere, talking about penance and forgiveness. See, when you get right down to it, most Catholic Church doctrine is more guidelines than laws.

Like Atticus, my wife and I were married in the Catholic Church and asked if we'd raise the kids Catholic. Sure, we both said, but are you sure you're really ready for that? We weren't asked to sign anything.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

Where I am is in a different church.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Where I am is in a different church.

Is this your new thread title, Mr. 5K?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Is this your new thread title, Mr. 5K?

I would prefer to honor Wonk with “No faith in the moral standards of the players as a group”.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

Some priests are smart enough to know that God is more flexible than the Vatican and they choose to obey the real boss? (Note the question mark)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Some priests are smart enough to know that God is more flexible than the Vatican and they choose to obey the real boss? (Note the question mark)

If you know what God wants, and it’s different than what your employer wants, shouldn’t you, you know, quit and open your own shop?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It’s a widely held misconception among lay Catholics that only marriages deemed “valid” by church law are sacramental in character and subject to annulment before a new marriage can be performed by the church. Not so. I know several priests who had to deliver the news that Bride was not going to get a wedding Mass just because Groom’s prior marriage was performed by a justice of the peace in Vegas. It’s true that weddings to Protestants require “permission” while marriages to “persons of no creed” require dispensation, but all marriages entered into prior to seeking a church wedding have to be adjudicated somehow. The standards for establishing an imperfect formation of intent are probably easier for an Elvis chapel wedding, but still.

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

Damn. Sally Field got really ornery after she stopped being fuckable, didn't she?